Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Novus Path Labs vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 21 March, 2024
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
21st March, 2024
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 238 of 2024
M/s Novus Path Labs
and Another ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Siddhartha Luthra, Senior Advocate
(through video conferencing) assisted by
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate
Counsel for the State : Mr. V.K.Gemini, learned Dy. A.G.
Counsel for respondent no 4. : Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Oral)
1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is
praying for quashing of the First Informant Report No.
0201 of 2024 dated 28.02.2024, wherein the present
petitioner has been implicated for the offences punishable
under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, at P.S.
Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
with the same set of allegations, earlier the respondent no.
4 filed a complaint on 23.05.2023 wherein the Special
Judge (PMLA)/Sessions Judge, Dehradun refused to take
cognizance on the said complaint by observing that the
entire evidence which is collected by the ED in relation to
the present ECIR has no material to suggest the
involvement of the present accused persons in the
participation of the criminal activity. It is further observed
that no prosecution witness is sited in the prosecution
complaint to prove the document which could indicate
involvement of the present accused in participation of the
criminal activity relating to the scheduled offences. It is
submitted that after rejection of the complaint, the letter
was sent by respondent no.4 to the Director General of
Police, Uttarakhand on 08.02.2024, wherein it was
mentioned that they collected certain information with
regard to some offence for which the FIR should be
registered. On the basis of the said letter, the Director
General of Police instructed to the concerned officials to
register the FIR, pursuant to which the FIR has been
lodged. It is submitted by Mr. Luthra, learned Senior
Counsel that with the same set of allegation, earlier a
complaint was filed and the same was rejected, therefore,
there was no occasion on the part of respondent no.4 to
wrote a letter to the Director General of Police for
registration of the FIR. Mr. Luthra, learned Senior Advocate
further submits that the order by which the complaint of
respondent no.4 was rejected by the Special Judge (PMLA)
was never been challenged by respondent no.4.
3. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent no.4, on instruction, submits that respondent
no.4 rightly sent this letter to the Director General of
Police. He submits that even after rejection of the
complaint, by invoking Section 66 (2) of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, he can forward the information to
the concerned official for registration of the FIR. He further
submits that pursuant to the Notification dated
22.11.2022, respondent no.4 can share the information
with the State Police Department.
4. In response to this Mr. Luthra, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Section 66 (2)
pertains to the some fresh information but as it appears
from the FIR, he submits that it does not pertains to some
new information rather it pertains to the same set of
allegation, which they have alleged in the complaint.
5. Apart from this, Mr. Luthra, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
impugned FIR is nothing but subsequent FIR with the same
set of allegation which is not permissible in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T.
Antony v. State of Kerala, reported in (2001) 6 SCC
181.
6. All these aspects are required deliberations.
7. Let the respondents may file counter affidavit
positively within two weeks.
8. Rejoinder affidavit to be filed within one week
thereafter.
9. List this case on 24.04.2024.
10. In the meantime, the investigation pursuant to
the impugned FIR may go on, however, the petitioner shall
not be arrested provided he cooperates with the
investigation.
___________________________
Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Dt: March 21, 2024
Nahid/
